PC wins over substance; all girl black debate team wins by NOT debating the given topic

If all the other stories about how our academic standards are falling don't convince you we are on our way to the world of "Idiocracy" at warp speed,
this story about the new college debate champions should convince you that our country is doomed.

Decline of Debate: The Sequel

Collegiate debate—the organized, full-contact version, not the dorm-room bull session—has long been the domain of earnest apple-polishers. The
kind of strait-laced students who color inside the lines, do all their homework, and look down on the unwashed masses with their A-minus averages. But
in recent years, this white-bread subculture has been embracing “diversity,” with predictable results.

At the Cross Examination Debate Association Championships in March, the final match featured two pairs of African-American debaters. Progress! The
debate centered around a resolution asking whether or not the president’s war powers should be restricted. The contest was won by the duo from
Towson State University, Ameena Ruffin and Korey Johnson, who chose to argue the side of . . . well . . . it’s hard to say.
Here’s the Atlantic’s formulation: “Rather than address the resolution straight on, Ruffin and Johnson, along with other teams of
African-Americans, attacked its premise. The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black
communities.”

If you think them going off script is bad, you should hear the actual debate; the women sound like they're hyperventilating the whole time and throw
around the terms "N-word" and "whitey" like they're going out of style. It sounds to me like they're spouting pure nonsense but, I guess I'm just not
open enough to diversity and too closed minded to fully appreciate their debating style.

Some groups protested against the freestyle form of the debates and got permission to hold a more traditional style of debate contest but, when only
"elitist", primarily white colleges decided to participate in this contest, it was determined to be "too racist" and summarily cancelled.

What is new, however, is the attempted pushback from the more traditional debate powers. The debate coach at Northwestern, Aaron Hardy, dared to
suggest that this Newspeak debate tactic might be problematic and that there ought to be a place in college debate for teams which, for instance,
engaged the resolution, argued facts and data, and abided by rules on time and format. His suggestion was to carve out a little area for what he
called “policy only” debates.

Hardy’s suggestion was not well received. According to the Atlantic, 14 teams signed up for the “policy only” tournament. But those teams had
the misfortune to come from elite schools and were predominately white students. The “policy only” debate was deemed racist and canceled.

That's right folks; demanding actual substance and fact finding in our debates is racist and intolerant. We must embrace the diversity, no matter how
much it dumbs down the next generation. I'd hate to see what debates in congress or the UN will look like when this generation comes into
power.

hat's right folks; demanding actual substance and fact finding in our debates is racist and intolerant. We must embrace the diversity, no
matter how much it dumbs down the next generation. I'd hate to see what debates in congress or the UN will look like when this generation comes into
power

It sounds to me like they're spouting pure nonsense but, I guess I'm just not open enough to diversity and too closed minded to fully appreciate
their debating style. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I fully concur.

I honestly have no idea what they were saying or if it was worth trying to determine what they were saying, but I don't plan on spending any time
deciphering it.

What gets me is how articulate and well spoken they are in the Fox News interview compared to their hyperventilating rant at the tournament. They even
make the claim that they had two weeks to research their subject prior to the debates but, still couldn't manage to stay on subject once the thing
got started.

Also, for the record; I think they only won because they were the all female team. The other team sounded much better (they rapped their whole debate
Jessee Jackson style), some of their arguments almost made sense and they managed to get through a few sentences without resorting to the "N-word".

What gets me is how articulate and well spoken they are in the Fox News interview compared to their hyperventilating rant at the tournament. They even
make the claim that they had two weeks to research their subject prior to the debates but, still couldn't manage to stay on subject once the thing
got started.

Also, for the record; I think they only won because they were the all female team. The other team sounded much better (they rapped their whole debate
Jessee Jackson style), some of their arguments almost made sense and they managed to get through a few sentences without resorting to the "N-word".

Them guys got robbed IMHO.

It could be argued that in its current form, post secondary education in the US, is abysmally slanted along socio-economic lines.

I myself found after going to college, I spent much of the early years and summers, LEARNING to a level that would be competent for college.

Coming from a Middle class background in a Suburb, at a "good" HS, in a "Good" area, the education I received had not prepared me for the
Collegiate level.

That even by being Middle class, I was missing out on further education available to those in the IVY league, that my background, though supported by
scholar ships, NO where near prepared me.

So, in debate, I can only imagine what someone from a Poorer background and not so "good" school would face at that level.

Like I said, IT COULD be argued.

Thats not what this is, this is a tantrum followed by an ITS NOT FAIR.

Its college, if your there, you have the where with all to uplift your argument beyond whats present there.

They need to speak fast in order to get in all the information in the allotted time... It's called spreading and in this type of debate is used along
with the creepy breathing. This isn't debate in my opinion, it's nonsense. Throwing out as many words as possible in order to make the other team
more likely to miss a rebuttal.

There should be some decorum though and flagrantly skirting the issue and debating that the debate itself isn't fair because of white oppression is
just ridiculous.

debate is the final stand for teaching students how to think. Once debate falls to the unwashed masses, there will no longer be an arena of critical
thought within our schools.

Whether you never competed in debate or not (i didn't), it is critical that we maintain the rules of logic that it has always required of its
participants. Not doing so removes the last obstacle to mendacity.

Wow.... Can I just deviate out to debate whatever side issue strikes my fancy in a formal debate, irregardless of what is actually being debated by
others?

I suppose that's the stock standard on the Internet and environments where the rules are fluid on that sort of thing...but formal debate is (was)
supposed to be just what it says.

The debate over the War Powers Act is also a damned important one, given how recent multiple Presidents have skirted it or seriously considered
ignoring it entirely. I distinctly recall my first hearing of it by George HW Bush being told his Presidency would 'die in the sands of Kuwait' if
he proceeded without consent of Congress. He did, of course, but the fact any fuss even reached the public eye back then spoke VOLUMES as to what was
happening outside that line of sight, IMO.

What a deal.....Prepare for a debate on the WPA and find yourself facing a debate on racial politics. Err... I'd call foul, since specific rules
already went out the window there.

Wow.... Can I just deviate out to debate whatever side issue strikes my fancy in a formal debate, irregardless of what is actually being debated by
others?

Yeah, kinda. You're allowed to argue a topic that envelops the current topic if you can make a case for it being related and somehow more important.
Which they basically did. Now say they're against a white team. Imagine having to argue that oppression isn't a big deal in this context. If you
choose not to refute the ranting and the judges find it relevant you lose points. It's a sneaky underhanded way to win. It's lawyer ball.

I am just not able to comprehend them, but I have been able to understand other debates where they sound like they are about to hyperventilate with a
bit of effort.

With them I believe it has a lot to do with the constant N bombs that make me instinctively tune it all out. It just sounds like crude uneducated
babble to my ears where if they did have anything of substance worth hearing it was drowned out by the unnecessary shock value. I am shocked, shocked
at how low the standards have fallen for what is supposed to be part of higher education.

That form of debauched language is a complete disregard for the debate cycle as a whole. Linguists be damned because they aren't even speaking
clearly enough for a listener to actually hear both sides of an argument. Orators from long ago would put all of them in their figurative place with
eloquent speeches and articulation. Not this speed density mix of garbage.

The women in the debate were terribly ranting about a topic that was clearly not even in the premise of the title debate. How that is even considered
a debate is beyond me. Good grief what are we coming to? It was more like an extremely fast paced poem that was two black women slurring about racial
undertones and their white oppressors. I have no clue how that won anything.

Then the Harvard debate? What in the world was that mess? This is what we are teaching college students? Wow. Just....wow.

Incredibly stupid and meaningless banter about topics that sound like pre-planned asthma attacks.

Kritiks: The negative can claim that the affirmative is guilty of a certain mindset or assumption that should be grounds for rejection. Kritiks
are sometimes a reason to reject the entire affirmative advocacy without evaluating its policy; other times, kritiks can be evaluated within the same
framework for evaluation as the affirmative case. Examples of some kritiks include ones against biopower, racism, centralized government or
anthropocentric viewpoints.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.